Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T21:47:29.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with tiafenacil mixes in corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2021

Nader Soltani Open the ORCID record for Nader Soltani [Opens in a new window] ,
Christy Shropshire  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Nader Soltani*
Affiliation:
Adjunct Professor, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Christy Shropshire
Affiliation:
Research Technician, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Nader Soltani, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, 120 Main Street East, Ridgetown, ONN0P 2C0, Canada. (Email: soltanin@uoguelph.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four field experiments were completed in commercial corn fields during 2019 and 2020 to determine glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed control in corn with tiafenacil alone or in combination with bromoxynil, dicamba, or tolpyralate applied preplant (PP). Corn planted 1 to 10 d after herbicide application was not injured with any of the herbicides tested. GR horseweed interference reduced corn grain yield 32% when left uncontrolled. Herbicides reduced GR horseweed interference and resulted in corn grain yield that was similar to the weed-free control. Glyphosate (900 g ae ha−1) + tiafenacil at 12.5, 25, and 37.5 g ha−1 controlled GR horseweed 63%, 68%, and 72% at 4 wk after treatment (WAT) and decreased GR horseweed density 64%, 43%, and 83% and dry biomass 69%, 55%, and 83%, respectively. Glyphosate + tiafenacil at 12.5, 25, and 37.5 g ha−1 plus bromoxynil (280 g ai ha−1) controlled GR horseweed 81%, 88%, and 87% at 4 WAT and reduced GR horseweed density 82%, 94%, and 93% and dry biomass 93%, 93%, and 98%, respectively. Glyphosate + tiafenacil at 12.5, 25, and 37.5 g ha−1 plus dicamba (300 g ai ha−1) controlled GR horseweed 86%, 88%, and 88% at 4 WAT and decreased GR horseweed density 76%, 89%, and 86% and dry biomass 94%, 98%, and 98%, respectively. Glyphosate + tiafenacil at 12.5, 25, and 37.5 g ha−1 plus tolpyralate (30 g ai ha−1) controlled GR horseweed 90%, 90%, and 91% at 4 WAT and decreased GR horseweed density 93%, 91%, and 95% and dry biomass 98%, 97%, and 97%, respectively. The industry standards in Ontario, glyphosate + dicamba/atrazine and glyphosate + saflufenacil/dimethenamid-p controlled GR horseweed 95% and 100% at 4, 8, and 12 WAT and caused 99% and 100% density or biomass reduction, respectively.

Keywords

Atrazinebromoxynildicambadimethenamid-pglyphosatesaflufenaciltiafenaciltolpyralatehorseweedConyza canadensis (L.) CronquistcornZea mays L.Canada fleabanecrop injurydensitydry biomassglyphosate resistancepreplant applicationvisible control
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , December 2021 , pp. 908 - 911
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: David Johnson, Corteva Agriscience

References

Anonymous (2020) Tiafenacil 339SC herbicide label. Concord, OH: ISK Biosciences Corporation. EPA Registration No. 71512. 18 pGoogle Scholar
Brown, LR, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2016) Control of glyphosate-resistant Canada fleabane in corn with preplant herbicides. Can J Plant Sci 96:932–934 Google Scholar
Budd, CM (2016) Improving the Consistency of Glyphosate-resistant Canada fleabane (Conyza canadensis) Control with Saflufenacil: Distribution and Control in Soybean (Glycine max). M.Sc thesis. Guelph, ON: University of Guelph. 51 pGoogle Scholar
Budd, CM, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Hooker, DC, Miller, RT, Sikkema, PH (2016) Control of glyphosate resistant Canada fleabane with saflufenacil plus tankmix partners in soybean. Can J Plant Sci 96:989–994 Google Scholar
Byker, HP, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardif, FJ, Lawton, MB, Sikkema, PH (2013) Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with dicamba applied preplant and postemergence in dicamba-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 27:492–496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, VM, Johnson, WG (2008) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) emergence, survival, and fecundity in no-till soybean. Weed Sci 56:231–236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency (2020) EPA Proposes Registration of New Herbicide to Aid in Resistance Management. https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USAEPAOPPT/bulletins/298347a. Accessed: March 10, 2021Google Scholar
Ford, L, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Nurse, RE, McFadden, A, Sikkema, PH (2014) Canada fleabane (Conyza canadensis) control with preplant applied residual herbicides followed by 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA applied postemergence in corn. Can J Plant Sci 94:1231–1237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, MR, Swanton, CJ, Anderson, GW (1992) The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 40:441–447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haring, B, Hanson, B (2020) Glufosinate and Tiafenacil Burndown Trial. University of California, Davis. https://ucanr.edu/repository/fileaccess.cfm?article=178644&p=NFLFGK. Accessed: March 19, 2020Google Scholar
Mahoney, KJ, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2017) Post-emergence herbicides for control of glyphosate-resistant Canada fleabane in corn. Can J Plant Sci 97:206–209 Google Scholar
Metzger, BA, Soltani, N, Raeder, AJ, Hooker, DC, Robinson, DE, Sikkema, PH (2019) Multiple herbicide-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) dose response to tolpyralate and tolpyralate plus atrazine and comparison to industry standard herbicides in corn. Weed Technol 33:366–373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Food and Rural Affairs (2017) Area, Yield, Production and Farm Value of Specified Field Crops, Ontario, 2012–2017 (Imperial and Metric Units). http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/crops/estimate_new.htm#metric. Accessed: March 19, 2020Google Scholar
Park, J, Young, OA, Jeong-Won, N, Myoung, KH, Namsook, S, Taejoon, K, Gyung-Hee, Y, Soon-Kee, S (2018) Biochemical and physiological mode of action of tiafenacil, a new protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase-inhibiting herbicide. Pestic Biochem Physiol 152:38–44 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soltani, F, Dille, JA, Burke, IC, Everman, WJ, VanGessel, MJ, Davis, VM, Sikkema, PH (2016) Potential corn yield losses from weeds in North America. Weed Technol 30:979–984 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, SE (2001) The biology of Canadian weeds. 115. Conyza canadensis. Can J Plant Sci 81:867–875 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerveld, D (2021) Evaluation of Bromoxynil, Pyraflufen-ethyl/2,4-D, and Tiafenacil for the Control of Glyphosate-resistant Canada Fleabane (Conzya canadensis) in Soybean (Glycine max) and Metribuzin for the Control of Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) with Two Mechanisms of Resistance to Photosystem II-inhibiting herbicides. M.Sc thesis. Guelph, ON: University of Guelph. 191 p. Westerveld_David_202103_MSc.pdf (uoguelph.ca). Accessed: March 24, 2020Google Scholar